Highway of tears

I was way of my base on this one. Although... some clever individual might present an updated version of a similar nature "Sent to Coventry" "To be shunned or ignored" St Johns Church, commonly known as Bablake Church was completed in 1350. It became a prison for hundreds of the troops of The Duke of Hamilton during the Civil War -1647. The People of Coventry were strongly Puritan and were loyal to the parliamentary cause. Such was their loyalty indeed that they shunned all forms of fraternisation with the prisoners who were thus completely ignored. And so it was the phrase "sent to Coventry" was born.

[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita] Perturbed, it's obvious that treating everyone equally is AN answer. However, it's not the only one, and it's one that would result in the forced assimilation of native peoples. Some of them still live in somewhat traditional manners, feeding themselves primarily by hunting/fishing/gathering. And they enjoy it. I'm not sure if you were referring to concentration ca... er... "internment" camps with your japanese comment. It's a valid point - the Japanese who suffered in those camps received a large symbollic payout in the '80s. The payout was roughly $20 000, I think - large enough to clearly state remorse at the injustice, but a single payment that does not create depency, and small enough to not give an image of preferential treatment. There is, however, a significant legal difference between the Japanese case and the First Nations one. The Japanese all came to Canada of their own free will; the First Nations already possessed this land when the Europeans came. And most Canadian land was never conquered or purchased or in any way negotiated through treaty. Thus, under conventional Western law (and Canadian Law, I might add), the First Nations still hold legal title, at least over most of Western Canada. So where does that leave us? We have a system of entitlement, handouts and dependency on those handouts (sounds like a Fed. Lib. scandal). And we need to get to a point where things are resolved, where First Nations can thrive in an environment conducive to traditional ways, or conventional Canadian ways, or some mix of the two. It isn't up to us to define how they live, but it IS up to us to accomodate that choice and to help mend open wounds. (And yes, I mean "us" as in Canadians - I've never left the country). One point I think I neglected to clearly make above: I don't agree with this idea of suddenly treating everyone as "equals", as it wholly inequitable to the First Nations. Nor do I believe in the current philosophy of perpetual handouts because of the dependency they create. The solution, in my opinion, is to find some land that the First Nations people can actually use (valuable land to First Nations? What a novel idea!), negotiate a treaty, and move on. And in the process, it would be nice to include ALL the Natives, not just a leader or two. And perhaps the offer of free education and mentorships to give them the opportunity to better manage the resources on their land, in the case that they choose to become MORE integrated with the rest of Canada. (Please note that I'm a proponent of universal free post-secondary education). Anyways, there are some thoughts. Any comments?[/QUOTE] I have a very different way of looking at things. I don't believe it is inequitable to aboriginals to treat them equally--it is inequitable to white Canadians. No one ever really wanted aboriginals to be integrated into Canadian (read white) society. I don't understand why people assume the problems are the crime, suicide etc. they see in native communities, and that this is anyone's fault. They have every reason to be depressed but they are different. They are asian aboriginals who have no interest in returning to all of their old traditions yet they simply can't compete at the same level and hence have the same inflated crime rates and other negative statistics that minorities in Canada and other western nations have. Aboriginals were conquered by a superior force, and even if we tried they would never reach the same level as the people who conquered them. Never. We can be nice or we can be mean but it would make little difference. They can live the brutal lives they used to live or them can live in Canadian cities as long as we let them, but they are not European and hence should not be allowed to integrate into our society as they are currently doing. With all due respect to Louis Riel I don't want a country of Louis Riel's, I want a Canada that reflects the intentions of the founders of the country. A country in the spirit of western interests and values, not minority interests. The crime that aboriginals are unfortunately responsible for is so bad in cities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan that white and aboriginal people literally walk on the opposite side of the street to this very day. This is masked by the rare mention of police brutality towards people who have hardly endeared themselves to the whites who so nicely allowed aboriginals to live in the cities Canadians and various European immigrants to Canada built. Until Diefenbaker changed the laws, aboriginals were not even allowed to go to a Canadian city without permission from their federal Indian officer. Abolishing this policy was a mistake and a tragedy for both sides. It should be reinstated and many native leaders admit they want a separate future. In the end, aboriginals are the ones repsonsible for their plight and only they can decide to stop throwing their lives away in such great numbers. That said, there really isn't much they can aspire to other than living their lives in perpetual motion.

[QUOTE]I have a very different way of looking at things. I don't believe it is inequitable to aboriginals to treat them equally--it is inequitable to white Canadians. [/QUOTE] You're right - it IS inequitable to whites to be treated differently than First Nations. That was, I believe, the intended message in my post - that the only equitable solution (treating everyone perfectly equally) would result in the assimilation of First Nations' cultures. [QUOTE]No one ever really wanted aboriginals to be integrated into Canadian (read white) society.[/QUOTE] Actually, I believe "reform schools" were set up for just that purpose. The Native children were literally kidnapped from their villages and imprisoned in camps where they were banned from speaking their native languages. When disease struck, they slept in a configuration of alternating a sick child with a healthy one. Many children were physically and/or sexually abused. And many, many did not return home. You COULD argue that it wasn't forced assimilation, that it was "just" cultural genocide. Either way, it is easy to see that these tragedies of less than a century ago can easily explain some of the prevailing issues on-reserve. Imagine being raised in a community where EVERY grandparent has been kidnapped, abused, and watched their friends purposefully killed off by disease? And imagine that in the same community, every parent was raised by someone with no personal experience of a healthy childhood as a result. This isn't some far-begone problem; the people who suffered are still alive today and the First Nations community still suffers their pains. [QUOTE]Aboriginals were conquered by a superior force, and even if we tried they would never reach the same level as the people who conquered them.[/QUOTE] Actually, they were never conquered. At least, most weren't. They never surrendered and, for the most part, never negotiated the sale or trade of their land. In Western law, that means they still hold legal title to most of Canada. As to the idea of First Nations never reaching the same "level" as those who "conquered" them... well this is a touchy subject with many different approaches, so I'll explain my assumptions while I make my argument. First, I would never be so pretentious as to argue with a speciliazed expert in his field of expertise unless I was particularly informed and had good reason. I understand that carbon dating is a terribly inexact science, but I would not argue with the anthropologists and archeologists who claim that the North American First Nations crossed over from Asia 15,000-25,000 years ago. It might be 50,000 years, but I assume their basic scale is roughly right. And I wouldn't argue with evolutionary geneticists who wholly agree that this time span would yield negligible evolutionary changes. Oh sure, different cultures are slightly more specialized. We all know that there are Kenyan highlanders who seem to be able to run long distances a lot better than everyone else in the world. And people native to equatorial climates are more resistant to tropical diseases. And species that are marooned on small islands with no predators shrink in size. But, genetically speaking, the variation between individuals is greater than the differences between cultures. First Nations are not less competent as a race. If an adult's capabilities are a product of nature (genetics) and nurture (circumstances of child rearing, etc), then I'd say the obvious culprit here is the nurture, not the nature. Evolutionary theory would suggest that all cultures are pretty much equal in their basic abilities. The differences are a matter of circumstances. Civilization prospered in those societies that had access to the right tools: cultivable large grains, animals with a natural controllable herding instinct, and later easily accessible minerals. When the cultivation of the grains required large irrigation works, the need for central governance emerged and the the seeds of modern civilization sprouted. It might come as a big surprise, but some of the Native American (read: Mexican) civilizations were terribly complex and advanced when the Europeans first arrived with their diseases. And long before that, early Chinese societies were centuries ahead of Europeans in their development. My point is that adopting such a racist Eurocentric perspective on relative development does nothing but sabotage a culture's ability to contribute to future development in their own ways. It assumes that there is some end goal in the development of civilization, that at some point all cultures will reach some ideal state, a single social organizational structure adopted by all that is superior to all others. But in that assumption you forget that there are both pros and cons to all structures. You forget that the Western Model has never reached equilibrium with its environment, that de-regulated capitalism depends on continual longterm expansion of the empire, whereas the smaller tribe-based structure of First Nations has actually survived thousands of years in equilibrium with its environment (just as one example). [QUOTE] They can live the brutal lives they used to live or them can live in Canadian cities as long as we let them, but they are not European and hence should not be allowed to integrate into our society as they are currently doing. With all due respect to Louis Riel I don't want a country of Louis Riel's, I want a Canada that reflects the intentions of the founders of the country. A country in the spirit of western interests and values, not minority interests.[/QUOTE] I think many would view Louis Riel as a founder of this nation. And with all due respect, Canada IS a country of minority interests. The French were a minority when they arrived. Then the flood of Europeans and their accompanying disease-infested blankets made First Nations a minority. Then the country was assembled with the blood of the Chinese minority. Every town in Western Canada that underwent a boom tells the story of some minority. I only know a few, but... the Aluminum smelter in Kitimat, one of the biggest in the world and a major contributor to BC's tax base, has traditionally been run by a huge minority of Portugese. The mill a hundred kilometers away in Terrace was operated by a mix of whites and East Indian immigrants. The entire West Coast fishing industry has traditionally been a mix of Japanese and First Nations fishermen. Vancouver and the lower mainland are now about 50% non-white, and Toronto isn't far behind. That's the history of Canada - a series of booms and busts, with little pockets of different ethnic minorities scattered across the country as a legacy of very focused migrations. At least that's how it is out West. Your dream of a European Canada is terribly misguided. Don't get me wrong - I don't pretend to have all the answers to our woes. And I agree that it's ultimately up to the First Nations to make build themselves a respectable life (as many are doing). But in a capitalist society where the 'haves' tend to remain 'haves' and the 'have-nots' tend to remain 'have-nots' over generations, it's important to recognize that the founders of modern Canada did a great injustice to these people and that the benefactors of modern Canada owe it to them to help accomodate their efforts to rebuild their cultures. Maybe this will be achieved through the settlement of outstanding land claims, or maybe through mentorship, or more self-governance. But I think we can agree that it WON'T be achieved through the current policy of perpetual handouts.

[QUOTE]You're right - it IS inequitable to whites to be treated differently than First Nations. That was, I believe, the intended message in my post - that the only equitable solution (treating everyone perfectly equally) would result in the assimilation of First Nations' cultures.[/QUOTE] You're a hypocrit. Back during the debates on Vive abou multiculturalism, you showed little sympathy about the threat massive immigration poses in displacing English and French culture in Canada, yet you fawn over aboriginal cultures that have accomplished much less and were often very brutal. Many aboriginal cultures have been lost. They could be resurrected, but to accomplish what? [QUOTE]Actually, I believe "reform schools" were set up for just that purpose. The Native children were literally kidnapped from their villages and imprisoned in camps where they were banned from speaking their native languages. [/QUOTE] Yes that was egalitarianism, and the result swere ugly, but that wasn't exactly something Canadians pushed for. The residential school did not however give aboriginals the right to live in Canadian cities--the races were kept separate. Only cultural integration and assimilation was the intention. [QUOTE]This isn't some far-begone problem; the people who suffered are still alive today and the First Nations community still suffers their pains.[/QUOTE] Oh please. Just as the Germans got over Dresden at least partially and moved on and the Japanese over Hiroshima, the aboriginals had damn well better stop blaming everything on past events. [QUOTE] Actually, they were never conquered. At least, most weren't. They never surrendered and, for the most part, never negotiated the sale or trade of their land. In Western law, that means they still hold legal title to most of Canada.[/QUOTE] Laws are important to a point but not all laws are equal. You are right they were not conquered--in the U.S.A. they were conquered, in Canada they were pushed back by waves of European immigration. [QUOTE]First, I would never be so pretentious as to argue with a speciliazed expert in his field of expertise unless I was particularly informed and had good reason. I understand that carbon dating is a terribly inexact science, but I would not argue with the anthropologists and archeologists who claim that the North American First Nations crossed over from Asia 15,000-25,000 years ago. It might be 50,000 years, but I assume their basic scale is roughly right. And I wouldn't argue with evolutionary geneticists who wholly agree that this time span would yield negligible evolutionary changes. [/QUOTE] Actually a discovery channel program stated the oldest artifact ever found in Canada was about 20,000 years old, and it was a European arrow-head. [QUOTE] Oh sure, different cultures are slightly more specialized. We all know that there are Kenyan highlanders who seem to be able to run long distances a lot better than everyone else in the world.[/QUOTE] That's a racial issue, or maybe even a sub-racial issue as for example West Africans specifically are the best at the 100 metre sprint. [QUOTE]But, genetically speaking, the variation between individuals is greater than the differences between cultures.[/QUOTE] You oversimplify the term culture as culture is both nature and nurture, it is not only genetic as it has a learned aspect as well, but does have a genetic component yes. It is also true yes that inviduals of different races can vary much more than the difference between races as a group, but when it comes to creating a society, group measurements count as some groups have few intelligent people and a much higher proportion of less desirable elements. [QUOTE]First Nations are not less competent as a race.[/QUOTE] First nations are Asian. If you say this you must mean Asians are not less competent. It depends what you are measuring. In terms of average IQ, some studies show Asians to have IQs that are higher (on average) than Europeans, but this also ignores the fact that various Asian people have vastly different skill-sets, such as the ability of the Inuit to resist cold climates versus say other Asians peoples. You would have to prove this statement, however, the problem is not that Asians are worse at everything, for they are not, the issue is that for the European society Canadians created to be maintained, we must have Europeans in that society. [QUOTE]If an adult's capabilities are a product of nature (genetics) and nurture (circumstances of child rearing, etc), then I'd say the obvious culprit here is the nurture, not the nature. Evolutionary theory would suggest that all cultures are pretty much equal in their basic abilities.[/QUOTE] All cultures are different, not equal. You mean race, not "culture" obviously. [QUOTE]The differences are a matter of circumstances. [/QUOTE] That is only part of it. Not all people in Africa had bad circumstances and they have nothing with fertile land rich in minerals. [QUOTE]Civilization prospered in those societies that had access to the right tools: cultivable large grains, animals with a natural controllable herding instinct, and later easily accessible minerals. When the cultivation of the grains required large irrigation works, the need for central governance emerged and the the seeds of modern civilization sprouted. [/QUOTE] That is absolute nonsense. You are taking that nearly word for word out of Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. His theory can be destroyed quite easily. Mayand developed a better civilization than the Africans in a very similar location near the equator with no interference. In New Guinea, the natives there DID have wild boars to hunt yet they are still practicing cannibalism to this very day. [QUOTE]It might come as a big surprise, but some of the Native American (read: Mexican) civilizations were terribly complex and advanced when the Europeans first arrived with their diseases.[/QUOTE] Those were not the Mexicans we see today, that was Mayan civilization. Mexicans have accomplished far less than the Mayans. Ironically, at the recent summimt with Bush, Harper and Fox, they visited Mayan ruins as apparently Mexico hasn't built anything worthwhile lately. [QUOTE]And long before that, early Chinese societies were centuries ahead of Europeans in their development. [/QUOTE] That was due to the problems Europe was having with epidemics (plagues) made worse due to the hygiene of the time and the iron rule of Kings and Queens and the church that stifled development of science and technology. once Europe got past this, it shot past the Chinese and got the Chinese past a point the Chinese were unable to advance beyond for literally centuries on end. [QUOTE]My point is that adopting such a racist Eurocentric perspective on relative development does nothing but sabotage a culture's ability to contribute to future development in their own ways. It assumes that there is some end goal in the development of civilization, that at some point all cultures will reach some ideal state, a single social organizational structure adopted by all that is superior to all others. But in that assumption you forget that there are both pros and cons to all structures. You forget that the Western Model has never reached equilibrium with its environment, that de-regulated capitalism depends on continual longterm expansion of the empire, whereas the smaller tribe-based structure of First Nations has actually survived thousands of years in equilibrium with its environment (just as one example). [/QUOTE] I never said european civilization was perfect--it is FAR, FAR from perfect and cannot be improved very easily in the parliamentary system. This said, it is hilarious for you to call me eurocentric as I believe you are Japanese in ancestry anyway, and the Japanese are far more racist and racially homogeneous that Europeans are. [QUOTE]I think many would view Louis Riel as a founder of this nation. And with all due respect, Canada IS a country of minority interests.[/QUOTE] It didn't use to be. Canada was largely created by the British. Lous Riel was in hindsight a Candian hero but he wanted a mixed-race nation of his own--and MacDonald luckily opposed that. [QUOTE]The French were a minority when they arrived. Then the flood of Europeans and their accompanying disease-infested blankets made First Nations a minority.[/QUOTE] Canada is a nation state, which is a european invention. The aboriginals were there but they were not significant after their help in the War of 1812. [QUOTE]Then the country was assembled with the blood of the Chinese minority. [/QUOTE] A small, dangerous portion of the CPR was indeed built by the Chinese. Most of Canada however, from the architecture to the infrastructure was not built by non-Europeans. [QUOTE]The entire West Coast fishing industry has traditionally been a mix of Japanese and First Nations fishermen.[/QUOTE] I an unaware of this being the case as I am of your comment about East Indians in the smelting industry. I assume that is recent. [QUOTE]Vancouver and the lower mainland are now about 50% non-white, and Toronto isn't far behind.[/QUOTE] Umm, I am aware of that but that is due to our immigration policy which is contrary to the interests of English and french Canadians who have been robbed of their nationality by the federeal government. [QUOTE]That's the history of Canada - a series of booms and busts, with little pockets of different ethnic minorities scattered across the country as a legacy of very focused migrations. At least that's how it is out West.[/QUOTE] 100 years ago there were many battles to close the door to Asian immigration. It is utopianism to say we are a nation of minorities. What language are we speaking? English, that is our dominant culture. Period. [QUOTE]Your dream of a European Canada is terribly misguided.[/QUOTE] With all due respect, I'll be the judge of that. I'm white, what else do you want me to do? Have kids with an aboriginal? [QUOTE]Don't get me wrong - I don't pretend to have all the answers to our woes. And I agree that it's ultimately up to the First Nations to make build themselves a respectable life (as many are doing). [/QUOTE] And most are not doing. [QUOTE]But in a capitalist society where the 'haves' tend to remain 'haves' and the 'have-nots' tend to remain 'have-nots' over generations, it's important to recognize that the founders of modern Canada did a great injustice to these people and that the benefactors of modern Canada owe it to them to help accomodate their efforts to rebuild their cultures. [/QUOTE] So you are volunteering to be the one to do it? I don't have time, I have a life of my own. [QUOTE]Maybe this will be achieved through the settlement of outstanding land claims, or maybe through mentorship, or more self-governance. But I think we can agree that it WON'T be achieved through the current policy of perpetual handouts.[/QUOTE] I don't see them ever getting anywhere to be honest.

[QUOTE]You're a hypocrit. Back during the debates on Vive abou multiculturalism, you showed little sympathy about the threat massive immigration poses in displacing English and French culture in Canada, yet you fawn over aboriginal cultures that have accomplished much less and were often very brutal. Many aboriginal cultures have been lost. They could be resurrected, but to accomplish what?[/QUOTE] You're right - I'm not particularly concerned that immigration will destroy English and French culture in Canada. I do, however, worry about particularly large monolithic immigrations. In my mind, small immigrations strengthen the diversity of the country; large immigrations threaten cultural takeover. I enjoy having friends of different backgrounds with different perspectives. Basically, it only begins to bother me when immigrants begin to show contempt for Canadian culture. So maybe my views on the issue have changed a little since the last debate. As for aboriginal cultures, I'm not talking about resurrecting lost ones; I'm talking about finding a solution for those natives stuck on useless pieces of land on the periphery of small towns with no rights to natural resources, who get regular handouts from the government, but no local employer will hire them because of racist sentiments. When I say we should "accommodate" their pursuit of a better life, I mean that we should give them an alternative to perpetual handouts - settle some land claims or something. [QUOTE]Oh please. Just as the Germans got over Dresden at least partially and moved on and the Japanese over Hiroshima, the aboriginals had damn well better stop blaming everything on past events.[/QUOTE] You yourself said there are still places where Natives and Whites walk on different sides of the street. From what I've seen, it's a whole lot harder to make the first steps when you're Native in rural Canada. I'd hardly consider it a thing of the past. It's just something that was more blatantly offensive in the past, but that is still oppressive, if perhaps in a more subtle way. [QUOTE]Those were not the Mexicans we see today, that was Mayan civilization. Mexicans have accomplished far less than the Mayans. Ironically, at the recent summimt with Bush, Harper and Fox, they visited Mayan ruins as apparently Mexico hasn't built anything worthwhile lately.[/QUOTE] Those Mayans WERE native to North America, right? I believe my point was that Native Americans were sandwiched by a great Chinese civilization in their former homeland and a great Mayan civilization to the south, and that they are most likely the racial/evolutionary link between the two. Thus, maybe they ARE capable of attaining the "level of their conquerors", as they don't seem to be lacking in genetic makeup. On a side note, I think your apparent hostility stems from a belief that we share that Native Americans ARE genetically equal (though not necessarily identical). That would make them more responsible for the poor conditions that plague most natives, right? My argument on this issue is that Westerners (or Euro-North Americans, or whatever you want to call white Canadians) traumatized an entire race, then placed them in substandard conditions with significantly less opportunities, and then gave them every incentive NOT to overcome adversity to succeed. [QUOTE]This said, it is hilarious for you to call me eurocentric as I believe you are Japanese in ancestry anyway, and the Japanese are far more racist and racially homogeneous that Europeans are.[/QUOTE] I really SHOULD learn to control my rantings about the superiority of Japan. Have I actually shown myself to be racist? And my (Japanese and Danish) parents would get a kick out of hearing that I'm racially homogeneous. [QUOTE]I an unaware of this being the case as I am of your comment about East Indians in the smelting industry. I assume that is recent.[/QUOTE] You kind of misquoted me on that. But my point was that any time there was a boom in Canada, a small but very focused immigration would occur from an area experiencing a "bust". Apparently a certain part of Portugal wasn't doing well when the Kitimat aluminum smelter opened. And same for India and the sawmill in Terrace. [QUOTE]With all due respect, I'll be the judge of that. I'm white, what else do you want me to do? Have kids with an aboriginal?[/QUOTE] Heaven forbid! [QUOTE]So you are volunteering to be the one to do it? I don't have time, I have a life of my own.[/QUOTE] How big is the Department of Indian Affairs budget? How much actually makes it through the bureaucracy to aboriginals? How much of that is given to corrupt tribal leaders who keep it for themselves and their friends? How IS the money dished out? I don't know the answer to those questions, but I have a feeling that a lot of improvements could be made.

If anyone's still following this thread for its original topic, the RCMP has responded to pressures by an independent private investigator and civil protests by local aboriginal women. They've just assigned 8 specialists in addition to the 25 investigators already working on the case, and they've moved the file to Vancouver to make use of computers. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/01/tears-060401.html

[QUOTE]You're right - I'm not particularly concerned that immigration will destroy English and French culture in Canada. I do, however, worry about particularly large monolithic immigrations. In my mind, small immigrations strengthen the diversity of the country; large immigrations threaten cultural takeover. I enjoy having friends of different backgrounds with different perspectives. Basically, it only begins to bother me when immigrants begin to show contempt for Canadian culture. So maybe my views on the issue have changed a little since the last debate.[/QUOTE] Immigrants have for several decades showed contempt for Canada. they come here and now expect us to pay to promote foreign cultures. As for small immigration "strengthening the diversity of the country", it doesn't as immigrants in small numbers usually assimilate and lose their culture. In big numbers immigration destroys diversity. that said, you are being so hypocritical. You want the old culture of Canada to become more diverse, yet the world was already diverse--diversity only exists when cultures are SEPARATE and given the right to their own living space, which is the cause of the separatist aspirations in Quebec. They still don't have their own state completely, though they have more powers. The world was already diverse, yet immgiration is actualyl destroying disctinct western nations. [QUOTE]As for aboriginal cultures, I'm not talking about resurrecting lost ones; I'm talking about finding a solution for those natives stuck on useless pieces of land on the periphery of small towns with no rights to natural resources, who get regular handouts from the government, but no local employer will hire them because of racist sentiments. When I say we should "accommodate" their pursuit of a better life, I mean that we should give them an alternative to perpetual handouts - settle some land claims or something. [/QUOTE] Once again, you are blaming whitey for the ills of aboriginals. You harbour a deep-seated anti-white bias. Why should white employers hire aboriginals when so many white people are unemployed? It is a plain fact that aboriginals have a lousy reputation for being unreliable workers, and have a huge problem with substance abuse. They are responsible for this reputation that they carry and hardworking aboriginals get unfairly painted with the same brush. Oh well. [QUOTE] You yourself said there are still places where Natives and Whites walk on different sides of the street. From what I've seen, it's a whole lot harder to make the first steps when you're Native in rural Canada. I'd hardly consider it a thing of the past. It's just something that was more blatantly offensive in the past, but that is still oppressive, if perhaps in a more subtle way.[/QUOTE] This said, where we disagree is that this can be remedied. Natives are simply different, and both sides hate each other. Aborginals hate it that whites are tougher and more sophisticated than them and whites hate aboriginals for draining tax dollars. [QUOTE]Those Mayans WERE native to North America, right? I believe my point was that Native Americans were sandwiched by a great Chinese civilization in their former homeland and a great Mayan civilization to the south, and that they are most likely the racial/evolutionary link between the two. Thus, maybe they ARE capable of attaining the "level of their conquerors", as they don't seem to be lacking in genetic makeup.[/QUOTE] They haven't proven they can advance or even maintain civilization. The onus is on them to prove they can do it and they haven't, much as Africa hasn't yet people like Robert Mugabe still blame the white west for hid country's problems. [QUOTE]On a side note, I think your apparent hostility stems from a belief that we share that Native Americans ARE genetically equal (though not necessarily identical). That would make them more responsible for the poor conditions that plague most natives, right? [/QUOTE] I never said they are genetically equal and I don't believe they are. That said of course an individual aboriginal can be smarter than a white and vice versa, and Asians do have higher average IQs, however in terms of tje inventors and such, I don't think there have been aboriginal inventors though maybe you hav eheard of some... [QUOTE]My argument on this issue is that Westerners (or Euro-North Americans, or whatever you want to call white Canadians) traumatized an entire race, then placed them in substandard conditions with significantly less opportunities, and then gave them every incentive NOT to overcome adversity to succeed.[/QUOTE] Yet again you display an anti-white bias. Aboriginals butchered each other before Europeans came here even more than white people did. The onus is on aboriginals to improve their condition. They don't need prime farmland anymore as our economy is not an agricultural economy anymore. Some tribes actually DO have great farmland that crosses south into the United States. Ojibwa? I forget I did a project on them once. [QUOTE]I really SHOULD learn to control my rantings about the superiority of Japan. Have I actually shown myself to be racist? And my (Japanese and Danish) parents would get a kick out of hearing that I'm racially homogeneous.[/QUOTE] So you're mixed-race and you want to tell a majority white country how to live? No wonder you want us to be a racially diverse society as you are racially mixed. It stems from your personal situation. [QUOTE]You kind of misquoted me on that. But my point was that any time there was a boom in Canada, a small but very focused immigration would occur from an area experiencing a "bust". Apparently a certain part of Portugal wasn't doing well when the Kitimat aluminum smelter opened. And same for India and the sawmill in Terrace.[/QUOTE] Yeah....I would be interested as to how many people stayed after these periods.....I personally think guest worlers should be temporary. [QUOTE] Heaven forbid![/QUOTE] You will simply have to accept that white people are a distinct race and would like to know what our cultural and racial makeup is 5 generations from now. If you had your way we'd be so mixed up no one would know what their culture or race is. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'> [QUOTE]How big is the Department of Indian Affairs budget? How much actually makes it through the bureaucracy to aboriginals? How much of that is given to corrupt tribal leaders who keep it for themselves and their friends? How IS the money dished out? I don't know the answer to those questions, but I have a feeling that a lot of improvements could be made.[/QUOTE] The budget could be improved by eliminating it completely. This would prevent Paul Martin's goal of "focusing on aborginal issues" in his retirement from coming true.

While not every aboriginal will want to go back to the land to hunt and fish for a living ,it should be an option to do so without having to kiss the asses of white bureaucrats and embellish their personal empire building efforts.Mnay of these efforts are what is called the "Canadian Clearances " similar to the Scottish highland clearances with the same motive, to get people off the land so they won't hinder a total takeover by multinational corporations.It's interesting to see the offspring of earlier white settlers experience the same treatment that their ancestors imposed on first nations a century or two ago. What goes around comes around. Living on the land will begin to sound like a better and better option the older they get and the more they begin to question the benefits of living in an urban smogbank , in bumper to bumber traffic.Only outside of the cities is living with less ,better living. I live with less and it enables me to get my money supply with three weeks work a year. The rest of my time I spend playing , sleeping in whenever I please , occasionally listening to the urban traffic and crime reports to see what I'm missing , by not persueing al those shiney consumer goods. Hunting and fishing is what rich yuppies work 11 months a year , in thick smogbanks,poisoning themselves and their families , shortening their lives drastically, and getting totally stressed out ,in order to be able to do for two weeks or less a year . Where's the logic in that?Duhhh Brent

With a Ms Doubtfire we would find out quickly if it is a serial killer , which it may well be.It would also be a warning to such sleazbags everywhere of the consequences wherever they may move.I'm surprised it hasn't been done already as it could be done unilaterally and quietly by any concerned family member who has ben affected . Brent